- FAQ
- Login
- Register
- Call Workpermit.com for a paid service +44 (0)344-991-9222
ESC
Welcome to immigrationboards.com!
Moderators: Casa, archigabe, CR001, push, JAJ, ca.funke, Amber, zimba, vinny, Obie, EUsmileWEallsmile, batleykhan, meself2, geriatrix, John, ChetanOjha
I saw this table posted earlier on. I am not referring to this one. Can you demonstrate the transfer of 200K to the UK by using bank statements from a UK bank? That's critical I think. Because the Home Office claims in the initial refusal and AR that you never had 200K. Are they correct in that statement or not? If you can disprove it by using hard evidence such as bank statements showing money coming in from Pakistan, that's excellent. If not, you fail to meet an eligibility criteria and that would be the end of it.
Zerubbabel wrote: ↑Sun Oct 06, 2019 7:49 pmHere are the guidelines:
If the money came to your account in multiple transfers, you won't have a single document showing the transfer of 200K but you will have multiple documents showing that transfer.
It probably falls under this:
(b) Where multiple documents are provided, they must show the total amount required is available on the same date.
Do you have a point where the balance, after multiple transfers from Pakistan, reached 200K?
I see where the Home Office are coming from. I was reading a case the other day that went in front of a tribunal (it was HMRC not the HO), where a group of people created the impression that they had access to a large sum of money by circulating the same money again and again. [this comes under money laundring]
If my brother wires me 50K, 10 times in a month, it's not a demonstration that I had access to 500K. The reason is that I can somehow send him the money back then he sends it again. So the ultimate proof of me having access to 500K is a balance in my account that shows at a certain date 500K in my account.[you will never have access but if the same amount is being tranferred then question can be raised but if the amount is different all the time it can be high and low from where the point will come ?]
The burden of proof lies on your shoulders. You have to demonstrate that you had access to 200K at one point. If that point cannot be demonstrated, or the documents presented cannot establish it with 100% certainty, the presumption would then play against you and you are not awarded the points for the funds.
The fact that you have bills for stock purchased for 200K is just in itself not a proof that you had access to 200K. They want to see the investment in form of cash not in form of stock.
purchasing is form is form of investment ,investment in form of cash meaning the money must be shown into the bank account in the form of cash not Stock , shares
I know, you are not at your initial application but you are at your extension after 3 years.umer.shahzad1 wrote: ↑Sun Oct 06, 2019 8:09 pmThis is requirement of initial
Application and my application is extension
marcnath wrote: ↑Sun Oct 06, 2019 9:52 pmThis is a tough one.
HO uses credibility, which is a very vague term, so difficult to argue.
I am a bit surprised HO did not ask you show how you satisfy 40(e), which requires you to have had access to the funds throughout. Will you be able to demonstrate that if needed ?
While there is no requirement on how many transactions the amounts need to be transferred. the many small transactions would naturally raise concerns. You would normally expect transfers to be in at least reasonably large amounts - 20K. 40K and so on rather than 1K transactions. Was there any reason why you did so many small transactions ?
You can go for JR, but even if the court pushes it back to HO, if you can't satisfy the clause 40 (e), they can then make a proper rejection by quoting that.
Zerubbabel wrote: ↑Sun Oct 06, 2019 10:29 pmI know, you are not at your initial application but you are at your extension after 3 years.umer.shahzad1 wrote: ↑Sun Oct 06, 2019 8:09 pmThis is requirement of initial
Application and my application is extension
During your initial application, you showed an account in Pakistan with 200K available for transfer to the UK for purpose of investment. Under that promise, your visa was granted.
When you apply for extension, you have to show that the 200K have been transferred to a UK bank account, have been available to you in full and have been invested in the business.
This 200K sum is central to your immigration route. It's not a lateral question as the purpose of the visa is to bring investors to the UK. So the Home Office needs to be satisfied that once the visa granted, the investor will commit and invest the money in the UK.
Each business is different and works under different circumstances. So each story is indeed different.
The Home Office wants to see a bank statement from a UK bank showing that at a certain date, even if it's for a day, the balance available in cash reached a minimum of 200K.
As you received the money in many (how many?) transfers and used it as it came, you never had 200K in the bank.
You are showing them a stock you value at 200K but this not what they want to see (see 40 a.)
marcnath wrote: ↑Sun Oct 06, 2019 9:52 pmThis is a tough one.
HO uses credibility, which is a very vague term, so difficult to argue.
I am a bit surprised HO did not ask you show how you satisfy 40(e), which requires you to have had access to the funds throughout. Will you be able to demonstrate that if needed ?
Yes that can be demonstrated if needed i have got third party declarations
While there is no requirement on how many transactions the amounts need to be transferred. the many small transactions would naturally raise concerns. You would normally expect transfers to be in at least reasonably large amounts - 20K. 40K and so on rather than 1K transactions. Was there any reason why you did so many small transactions ?
You can go for JR, but even if the court pushes it back to HO, if you can't satisfy the clause 40 (e), they can then make a proper rejection by quoting that.
Zerubbabel wrote: ↑Sun Oct 06, 2019 10:29 pmI know, you are not at your initial application but you are at your extension after 3 years.umer.shahzad1 wrote: ↑Sun Oct 06, 2019 8:09 pmThis is requirement of initial
Application and my application is extension
During your initial application, you showed an account in Pakistan with 200K available for transfer to the UK for purpose of investment. Under that promise, your visa was granted.
When you apply for extension, you have to show that the 200K have been transferred to a UK bank account, have been available to you in full and have been invested in the business.
This 200K sum is central to your immigration route. It's not a lateral question as the purpose of the visa is to bring investors to the UK. So the Home Office needs to be satisfied that once the visa granted, the investor will commit and invest the money in the UK.
Each business is different and works under different circumstances. So each story is indeed different.
The Home Office wants to see a bank statement from a UK bank showing that at a certain date, even if it's for a day, the balance available in cash reached a minimum of 200K. which has been done in my investment summary
As you received the money in many (how many?) transfers and used it as it came, you never had 200K in the bank. 23 transactions
You are showing them a stock you value at 200K but this not what they want to see (see 40 a.) i am not showing them stock worth £200k read the rule if u r showing money in the form of stock is not an acceptable evidence
Thank you for the excellent explanation. Allow me to ask a questions:Zerubbabel wrote: ↑Sun Oct 06, 2019 7:49 pmHere are the guidelines:
If the money came to your account in multiple transfers, you won't have a single document showing the transfer of 200K but you will have multiple documents showing that transfer.
It probably falls under this:
(b) Where multiple documents are provided, they must show the total amount required is available on the same date.
Do you have a point where the balance, after multiple transfers from Pakistan, reached 200K?
I see where the Home Office are coming from. I was reading a case the other day that went in front of a tribunal (it was HMRC not the HO), where a group of people created the impression that they had access to a large sum of money by circulating the same money again and again.
If my brother wires me 50K, 10 times in a month, it's not a demonstration that I had access to 500K. The reason is that I can somehow send him the money back then he sends it again. So the ultimate proof of me having access to 500K is a balance in my account that shows at a certain date 500K in my account.
The burden of proof lies on your shoulders. You have to demonstrate that you had access to 200K at one point. If that point cannot be demonstrated, or the documents presented cannot establish it with 100% certainty, the presumption would then play against you and you are not awarded the points for the funds.
The fact that you have bills for stock purchased for 200K is just in itself not a proof that you had access to 200K. They want to see the investment in form of cash not in form of stock.